Obama refuses to address the legal question about his Constitutional Eligibility to be sitting in the Oval Office. He has never conclusively proven to any controlling legal authority that he is a "natural born Citizen" of the USA to "constitutional standards" as is constitutionally required to be eligible for the office of President and Commander-in-Chief of the military.

Many people do not know there is a difference between a "Citizen" and a "natural born Citizen." Being a "Citizen" of any type, whether an Article II natural born Citizen, 14th Amendment born Citizen, 14th Amendment naturalized Citizen, or statutory born Citizen under a Congressional Act, means you are a member of the society and entitled to all its rights and privileges. But under our Constitution to serve in the singular most powerful office in our government, that is to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military under our Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, of our Constitution you need to be a "natural born Citizen." Being a "natural born Citizen" cannot be conveyed by any laws of man and can only be conveyed by the facts of nature at the time of your birth and circumstances of your birth, i.e., being born in the country to two citizens of the country. (Legal Treatise "The Law of Nations - Principles of Natural Law" Section 212 by E. Vattel 1758, SCOTUS Decision Venus 1814, SCOTUS Decision Minor v Happersett 1874). This new advertorial is designed to help educate the public pictorially about the fact that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA and thus is ineligible under our Constitution to the office he sits in. Obama is a Usurper who was allowed to be put there by millions in foreign money, a corruptly led Congress, and an enabling main stream media. This is a constitutional crisis and a national security concern that must be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court or our Republic, Constitution, and Liberties are in great danger.

Obama is hiding the truth from the People with an enabling media and is refusing to answer questions on his Article II constitutional eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the military. In fact he said last week people should not even question him about it. With him his constitutional eligibility and exact citizenship status policy is, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ... and hope it goes away. Well it is not going away. This is a constitutionally based legal eligibility question. Obama's election fraud and cover up will be revealed. The truth and the Constitution will win the day in the end and We the People will constitutionally remove the Usurper from his illegally obtained office.

59
comments:

Having my job cut sometime ago, most of my personal time is focused on job entry and resume research. Today, I came across one of the most unique impressive resume’s which inspired my downward spirit and immediately correlated this time, challenges and skill to none other than Mario Apuzzo. As we are all too well familiar, Mario and Charles have both faced many hurdles and criticism least not to mention the falsities claimed against their intellectual legal knowledge from those far less experienced in history and Constitutional awareness.

There was another individual in the far past that faced similar challenges during his time, his name was Leonardo da Vinci and I would like to post his resume.

Resume of Leonardo da Vinci…… sent in 1482, at the age of 30, capabilities to Ludovico il Moro, Duke of Milan.

"Most Illustrious Lord, Having now sufficiently considered the specimens of all those who proclaim themselves skilled contrivers of instruments of war, and that the invention and operation of the said instruments are nothing different from those in common use: I shall endeavor, without prejudice to any one else, to explain myself to your Excellency, showing your Lordship my secret, and then offering them to your best pleasure and approbation to work with effect at opportune moments on all those things which, in part, shall be briefly noted below. 1. I have a sort of extremely light and strong bridges, adapted to be most easily carried, and with them you may pursue, and at any time flee from the enemy; and others, secure and indestructible by fire and battle, easy and convenient to lift and place. Also methods of burning and destroying those of the enemy. 2. I know how, when a place is besieged, to take the water out of the trenches, and make endless variety of bridges, and covered ways and ladders, and other machines pertaining to such expeditions. 3. If, by reason of the height of the banks, or the strength of the place and its position, it is impossible, when besieging a place, to avail oneself of the plan of bombardment, I have methods for destroying every rock or other fortress, even if it were founded on a rock, etc. 4. Again, I have kinds of mortars; most convenient and easy to carry; and with these I can fling small stones almost resembling a storm; and with the smoke of these cause great terror to the enemy, to his great detriment and confusion. 5. And if the fight should be at sea I have kinds of many machines most efficient for offense and defense; and vessels which will resist the attack of the largest guns and powder and fumes. 6. I have means by secret and tortuous mines and ways, made without noise, to reach a designated spot, even if it were needed to pass under a trench or a river. 7. I will make covered chariots, safe and unattackable, which, entering among the enemy with their artillery, there is no body of men so great but they would break them. And behind these, infantry could follow quite unhurt and without any hindrance. 8. In case of need I will make big guns, mortars, and light ordnance of fine and useful forms, out of the common type. 9. Where the operation of bombardment might fail, I would contrive catapults, mangonels, trabocchi, and other machines of marvelous efficacy and not in common use. And in short, according to the variety of cases, I can contrive various and endless means of offense and defense. 10. In times of peace I believe I can give perfect satisfaction and to the equal of any other in architecture and the composition of buildings public and private; and in guiding water from one place to another. 11. I can carry out sculpture in marble, bronze, or clay, and also I can do in painting whatever may be done, as well as any other, be he who he may. Again, the bronze horse may be taken in hand, which is to be to the immortal glory and eternal honor of the prince your father of happy memory, and of the illustrious house of Sforza.

And if any of the above-named things seem to anyone to be impossible or not feasible, I am most ready to make the experiment in your park, or in whatever place may please your Excellency - to whom I comment myself with the utmost humility, etc."

And any readers new to the blog, I suggest you read Mario's excellent essay which clearly explains to be a natural born Citizen to constitutional standards one must be born in the country to two citizen parents (Natural Law and Vattel), and the U.S. Supreme Court case decisions which support that definition, and that those cases have never been overturned or reversed which is why Obama desperately does not want the merits ever tried in any court. History, the founders and framer's intent, natural law, and four U.S. Supreme Court cases which made the Vattel definition of "natural born Citizen" into U.S. common law have defined what "natural born Citizen" is. And Obama is not one. Obama's father was not even an immigrant to the USA, let alone that he was never a U.S. citizen.

If you go to the Mario Apuzzo website and actually read the Initial Appeals Brief of Jan 19, 2010, you're in for a real eye-opener (as are the DOJ attorneys "defending" Obama using our tax money).

That's doubly ironic since these attorneys - and their bosses - took an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign AND domestic but they are now in the position of actually attacking that very document rather than defending it and are trying to get an obviously ineligible man to remain in an office he has never shown himself to be eligible to hold.

The wonderful Apuzzo Brief is a primer on both Constitutional law, the meaning of it, the Founders' intent vis-a-vis Article II of the Constitution and a forceful put-down of the lies and misinformation put forth by the Obama Flying Monkeys such as "smrstrauss" and others.

The Brief gives a very good overview of the original action AND it puts the lie to the many false arguments by the Obot Flying Monkeys about why BHO is either eligible to hold the office he now occupies OR that it (their words) doesn’t matter that he is not eligible. Your understanding of the relation of the U. S. Constitution to We The People will be forever enlightened.

"A Natural Born Citizen is simply a citizen who has not been naturalized. Naturalized citizens are not eligible. Natural Born Citizens are eligible.

The definition of Natural Born Citizen is:

"“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition."

All US-born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004

The Wall Street Journal put it this way:

"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.'"

APUZZO RESPONSE: Your error is in equating a "citizen of the United States" to an Article II "natural born Citizen." The Constitution, even specifically in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5which prescribes the Presidential eligibility criteria, has always used both expressions. There are other sections of the Constitution that also make the distinction. Note that before the Constitution was adopted, the clause “citizen of the United States” necessarily included both born and naturalized citizens. But the Framers included yet another class of citizen for the future, “natural born Citizen.” This was a child born in the U.S. to citizen parents. Under standard rules of interpretation, the words "natural born" must be given meaning. You cannot simply conflate “citizen of the United States” and “natural born Citizen” into “citizen of the United States” and give the former clause the meaning that the latter clause has taken on under an incorrect although current interpretation of the 14th Amendment. There is no evidence that the 14th Amendment, which was adopted 80 years after the Constitution was adopted, was either intended to or in fact did amended Article II.

After the adoption of the Constitution, given the universal applicability of the law of nations as part of our federal common law, there was not supposed to be any confusion as to who was a future (post Constitution adoption) born U.S. citizen, i.e., a child born in the country to citizen parents. It is because some “authorities” (Minor v. Happersett explains this point and none of these “authorities” ever included any U.S. Supreme Court) and Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark opened the privilege of membership to U.S. citizenship to children born in the U.S. to alien parents that we must now distinguish between two different classes of born U.S. citizens. Justice Gray knew that he was not creating any "natural born Citizen." Rather, he just created another category of born citizens under the 14th Amendment, by clearly departing from the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which had been established by the main sponsors of the laws in the debates on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment and subsequent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. All former case law and history clearly showed that there was no way for a child to be born in the U.S. to one or both alien parents, whether the parents were foreign ambassadors, consuls, alien occupying soldiers, or just plain foreign citizens, and to be completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the U.S.

Even Justice Gray in his former opinion in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) knew it. What Justice Gray did in Wong Kim Ark is suspect because he was appointed by President Chester Arthur who unknown to the American public at the time was not born to a citizen father. See the research of Leo Donofrio on this point. This is what Justice Gray said there 14 years earlier regarding Indians which equally applies to non-diplomatic/soldier aliens present on U.S. soil:

"The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indiana tribes, (an alien though dependent power,)although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.”

Since Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark could not changed the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” he created another category of born U.S. citizens, i.e., those born on U.S. soil to alien parents who were domiciled and permanently residing in the United States. But this new born U.S. citizen was not the born U.S. citizen to whom the Framers entrusted the future power of the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. See the well-reasoned and correct statement of the law provided by Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan in Wong Kim Ark. Hence, Wong Kim Ark did not change the original constitutional meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” nor did any other later Supreme Court case. Currently, we therefore still have the original definition of a “natural born Citizen” as intended by the Framers.

Your Black's Law Dictionary definition does not provide any source as authority. In fact, all available authority shows that Black's is wrong in defining "natural born Citizen" the way that it does.

What these Senators today say a "natural born Citizen" is does not make it what they say it is. Remember what Judge Land said, just saying something is so does not make it so.

As far as The Wall Street Journal goes, if they want to back up what they wrote, they can invite me for a debate and we will see who is "eccentric."

The WSJ quote was from a July 2009 opinion piece by James Taranto that was as devoid of facts as it was humorous ... and quite wrong in addition.

Obots LOVE to pick up such nonsense from other Obots who are so quoted in the MSM as though it meant something definitive.

It does not - and the Flying Monkey you commented to must very well know that since he's been set straight several times on the matter ... but, hey, like the old saying "... when the law is on your side, argue the law, when the facts are on your side, argue the facts but when neither is the case - make something up ..." and that's precisely the game.

"There are two kinds of citizen from the point of view of presidential eligibility, and two kinds only: natural born and naturalized – those BORN citizens, and those later MADE citizens. If you want to make “natural” mean something special, then you have to account for its use in both phrases. Go read something by a real American rather than some Swiss dude.

I am really surprised at either your ignorance or your dishonesty. If you have been doing your homework on this eligibility issue, you would know better than to call Vattel a “Swiss dude” and try to tell the public that William Rawle is somehow more influential than Vattel.

Vattel exerted such a profound political influence that it is often said that his theories served as the backbone for American independence. J.S. Reeves, The Influence of the Law of Nature Upon International Law in the United States, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 3 547 et seq., passim (1909).

This is only one source and I will not get into so much of the information which shows who Vattel was and the tremendous influence that he had on the Founders and the making of our nation.

Please let me know which one it was for you to make the statement that you made, ignorance or dishonesty. I can forgive your ignorance but not your dishonesty.

Mario aren't those guys at obamaconspiracy nutty? I was posting as IceTrey over there. I went there again after reading this post and comments but I'm done with those guys, it's a waste of time. I ask them if "natural born" means the same thing as "born" why would the Framers even use the word "natural" at all. They come back with answers like the above. They act like the word "natural" isn't even there then they ask me to define it, even though they are completely ignoring it! Amazing. One of them even tried to say that "natural born" was MORE COMMON than just "born"! Crazy.

See Mr. Apuzzo how the dumbots conflate categories and terms to obfuscate? They'll say there's 2 categories, then describe categories which overlap one another, or which conflate NBC along with a 14ther to make them appear the same. "Born Citizen" and naturalized, was one of their favorite nonsensicals, that way they could lump in NBC with the "born citizens".

Here is what one of Dr. Conspiracy's defenders said in defense of Dr. Conspiracy. His screen name is nbc and has his own web site which defends Obama on the eligibility issue. First, he quotes my question and then he provides his answer:

"Mario: Please let me know which one it was for you to make the statement that you made, ignorance or dishonesty. I can forgive your ignorance but not your dishonesty.

Pot Kettle Black… Dr C however can speak for himself but it is sufficient to point out that Vattel’s impact on citizenship rules, an issue of municipal law, was minimal. That’s self evident when reading the early court cases.

I assume the appeal is not going too well?"

Here is my response:

"You are wrong about citizenship and national character being determined by municipal law. Municipal law only affected civil rights which were involved in ordinary transactions that were normally of a local character. But when it came to political rights which were more general in nature, the general principles of the law of nations applied. Acquiring or losing a national character was surely a political right and not a civil right. Hence, it was the law of nations that applied to determine national citizenship and nationality and not mere municipal law or the common law used by the states. The only time muncipal law (common law) was applied as the rule of decision was when the public law or the law of nations itself directd that the political law or municipal law of the nation were to supply the rule of decision. See Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830).

On how the appeal is going, why do you make such childish statements? You know that the defendants have yet to file their opposition brief and have requested a 14-day extension to do so. Would you care to explain what makes you think the appeal is not going too well? I'll be waiting."

The word "natural" in the term "natural born Citizen" comes from that term's roots in Natural Law. A person born in a country of two Citizens of that country are "naturally" a Citizen of that country and only that country. No other nation or country can claim them. Thus under such facts of nature at the child's birth and natural law it is naturally obvious which country and only one country can claim the allegiance of the child.

A "natural born Citizen" is born with sole allegiance to only one country and claims on it by only one country. Vattel in 1758 codified the concepts of Natural Law and in particular defined "natural born Citizen" (Vol.1, Chapter 19, Section 212, "Des citoyens et naturels.") in his legal treatise, "The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law".

See these essays for more details on "natural born Citizen", Vattel, and Natural Law, and how the term got into the U.S. Constitution.

Flashback. The 21JULY09 cover of "The New Yorker" magazine was very prophetic. Their alleged "satire" has now become all too true. God help the U.S.A., we must prevail. - http://cache.jezebel.com/assets/images/jezebel/2008/07/new_yorker_july_21_cover.jpg

From reading various liberal blogs, it looks like many Obama supporters are now arguing things like: if he was born in Hawaii, but then later accepted Indonesian citizenship, he is still a natural born citizen and also a dual citizen.

Which brings up an interesting point. If a Presidential candidate is truly a natural born citizen at birth, but then later accepts some sort of dual nationality, does he lose the “natural born” part?

One would think this wouldn’t even need to be a legal question, for if this is the case, and the media had done their job of informing the public, that a dual citizen would never be elected in the first place—that voters would want a patriot with ties no to country but the US. But I no longer think that is the case. People seemed to love that a candidate would call himself a “citizen of the world.”

Our founding fathers must be rolling in their graves.

I have mentioned here before how strange it is that we allow now allow dual citizenship in this country, when the exclusive oath of allegiance that naturalized US citizens must take specifically precludes it.

Another argument, in my opinion, for “subject to the jurisdiction” meaning more than simply geographical jurisdiction.

The Obama natural born citizenship debacle brings to light the many problems of allegiance and citizenship our country faces today. It is amazing that the 14th amendment has been twisted to mean that children of illegal aliens are given US citizenship.

A lot of that nonsense stems from the SCOTUS case Wong Kim Ark and that (plus the 14th Amendment) is what most of the Flying Monkeys hang their hat on.

Actually, Obama's whole life seems to be nothing but a work of fiction. The man has never shown himself to be Constitutionally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

If you'd like to see something from a different point of view, watch the two short videos below which, even though they start slowly and have a bit of fun, contain a wealth of factual data - more than we've seen from Obama.

In fact in the second video a famous senator is quoted speaking about someone that sounds for all the world like "Our Boy" and really strikes a chord.

Only thing is the senator was the Roman named Cicero speaking in 42 BC - but the message is still very directed and pertinent for all of us:

Can an Article II natural-born citizen be a "domestic enemy" of the United States? YES

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No person except a natural-born citizen… shall be eligible to the office of President.

Article VI: The Senators and Representatives …shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support [DEFEND] this Constitution.

Senate Oath of Office: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Congress Oath of Office: I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Oath of Military Officers: I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Oath of Military Enlisted: I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Oath of an individual appointed to an office of honor [Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices]: I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Oath of Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices taken before performing the duties of their offices: I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.

Oath of President: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Article III, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist… in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort…

Greg has left a new comment on your post ""Obama's Constitutional Eligibility Question" - Ne...":

Vattel exerted such a profound political influence that it is often said that his theories served as the backbone for American independence. J.S. Reeves, The Influence of the Law of Nature Upon International Law in the United States, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 3 547 et seq., passim (1909).

Let's see some of these other sources, Mario, because I've now read the article by JS Reeves and it says no such thing. It says that Vattel was one of many philosophers who were important in the founding in developing international law.

Your maligning of Justice Gray is pretty outrageous. He was writing substantially the same thing in 1857 when he attacked the Dred Scott decision.

Elk was a separate case, it had to do with Indians. Indians are mentioned, specifically, in the Constitution as a special case. Congress is empowered to make treaties with Indians.

Your reading of Wong is, of course, entirely flawed. If Gray wanted to create a new class of citizen, one born here, but ineligible to be President, he did a terrible job of it! He did such an atrocious job of it that the dissent complained that Wong was now eligible to be President!

What's amazing about you, Mario, is that you sit here, in 2010, and through the magic of hand-waiving, you can see into the minds of the Founders and Justice Gray and see things that they didn't write down!

The Founders just so happened to pick a phrase, natural born, that had been used since 1350 and they forgot to tell anyone they were changing it to mean something entirely different.

And Justice Gray clearly forgot to mention that Wong wasn't eligible for the Presidency. An oversight the dissent missed. It's also an oversight that every legal scholar in the 110 years between when Wong was decided and Leo filing his suit missed. As far as I can tell, there is not a single person with a bar card out there except you, Leo and Orly that believe that there are some people who are born here and become citizens because of their birth here, but are not Natural Born Citizens.

And, to cajapie, the 14th Amendment was written to ensure that no state could deny citizenship to African-Americans. Are they not eligible for the Presidency then?

you always looking for potus bc actually Indonesia had it long ago; when every kids go to school in Indonesian school they were required birth certivicate and kartu keluarga (KK in english said family card/ form). They made of colums; one of the columns said kewarga negaraan means citizenship; now the column below it if written WNI means Indonesian citizen; WNA means alien/foreign citizen. savvy; so if you wanted to know just come to his old school but not the haunting ground its on SD Katolik Fransiskus Assisi

The address would be on jalan haji ramli no24 menteng dalam the school it self if on english translate as catholic primary school fransicus assisi. but just show the taxy driver the address and they shall lead you to that.

The address would be on jalan haji ramli no24 menteng dalam the school it self if on english translate as catholic primary school fransicus assisi. but just show the taxy driver the address and they shall lead you to that.

I love how he just uses "natural born" and leaves off the "subject" part. LOL. You know if they were making the case that anyone born in the US is an NBC, making it equivalent to "native born", they might make a little sense. But everyone over there especially Dr. Conspiracy is saying that anyone born with US citizenship under ANY circumstances is an NBC. You could have a mother from country A, a father from country B and be born in country C they would argue you are an NBC of all 3 countries. So the question again is, why use "natural born" when "born" would mean the same thing? It is interesting to note that in the Act of 1981 the English no longer give citizenship to children born in England to alien parents. So I guess NBC status can be nullified by law as well as granted.

the candidate must be born without allegiance to any foreign power...and born with sole allegiance to the USA...

because

the President is the Commander in Chief...the most important defender of our Constitution...and must not have sympanthies to any foreign power that could interfere with his absolute duty to protect America and American interests...

You have oft heard it said ; that we are a nation of immigrants well.....The Founders/Framers had no﻿ intentions, what-so-ever, of permitting NON- U.S. immigrants to install their offspring as Commander-in-Chief

Ya let the Obscurantist, Obot or what have you; chew on that for a second or two and they can hardly muster even one of their standard bullcr*p responses. Confronted with an undeniable reality---the true spirit that propelled Our Revolution---they mostly fall silent

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"Jus soli only OR No jus soli but one or two parents US citizens OR and Indians (plus some found orphans).There is no mention of race, religion or ethnicity, nor any mention of "natural born citizen", because this is not part of the laws defining a statutory US citizen.

There is no provision in USC1401Section8, which is guided by the 14th amendment, that both parents be US Citizens AND that a child must be born on US soil. None. This is the only omitted permutation, every other one is covered by the USCode1401S8.

Natural Born Citizen is not IN the Constitution (14th amendment) nor in its subsequent laws. The only humanly possible permutation omitted from the 14th/1401 is for Natural Born Citizen (jus soli AND jus sanguinis both parents).

So race has nothing to do with the topic of being a natural born citizen. Lt. Col. Allen West is a natural born citizen, and a far better human being than the usurper could ever hope to be in a thousand lifespans.

What also happens here is that if 'bama is not a citizen of the United States of America, or in the very least has a dual citizenship, the man is not going to care about hearing from [his] constituency regarding matters on how to advance the country to a far better place to live. Allow me to put this another way, if the [man] were born in the United States of America with a parent from kenya as well as a parent from the United States of America, he unlike Clinton, would have propensities to be a traitor to the country and to not listen to anyone who was not of similar circumstances. That is not to say that he is a traitor at any point, that is only to say that to be born of two United States of America citizens is a further safeguard to loyalty to a unique country. This [man] shows a propensity to not be loyal to the United States of America and to mock that which we stand for.

In reading Mario's comment to an obot named Greg, it appears Greg is saying Justice Gray did a poor job at saying Wong was ineledgable for CIC. The actual words Justice Gray used clearly state that Wong is as much of a CITIZEN as a natural born citizen, which was derived from the same principle (jus soli).

“The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." Justice Horace Gray Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

If we look at the 14th Amendment we see that a person who is born under the juristiction of the United States OR a naturalized person is a CITIZEN.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, Clause 1

The operative word is CITIZEN.

Using Greg's flawed logic than I can assume that Wong is a 14th Amendment citizen, who is as much a citizen as a natural born citizen, therefore Arnold Schwartzenegger is also a 14th Amendment citizen and is a natural born citizen.

I have come to the conclusion that Obots don't lie, they are simply so deranged that they actually beleive the drivel they say.

I am not going to try and convience any obots, but a reasonable person wil see that both Wong and the 14th Amendment deal with CITIZENS in the most generic form.

The fact is Obama's condition of birth violated the warnings of two foundng fathers we have on the necessity of a natural born citizen being CIC.

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” John Jay

“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?” Alexander Hamilton

Obama was born owing allegience to the United Kingdom, and that is a FACT. If we consider that allegiences to a nation are a result of nature through birth or chosen at a later time, we can easily see Obama was not BORN with complete alleigence to the United States, but with divided loyalties.

I have some interesting news to report. I have been battling the obots at Dr. Conspiracy's blog for over 1 year. I have always argued that the Framers did not use English common law to define a "natural born Citizen" but rather natural law which became the law of nations and then when adopted by our nation became American common law. The obots have done nothing but cast ridicule and personal attacks upon me for my position.

I have fought back and showed the obots that they are the ones who are ridiculous for arguing that the Framers would have used English common law to define who would be President and Commander in Chief.

Today, a major obot legal commentator at Dr. Conspiracy's blog named Greg now takes the position that the obots never argued that the English common law controlled the issue of what a "natural born Citizen" is. Now he says they never said that but rather only said it was "the common law."

I told Greg that he is not only unbelieveable but also very deceitful.

Most non English language newspapers across Europe have properly explained the "natural born Citizen" issue and people there are always asking me "how can Obama continue to get away with that, are all Americans brainwashed to the point that they have become blind to what he's done?". The majority of people in the world understand the Constitutional crisis we're facing and they cannot comprehend why so many Americans seem totally oblivious to the major threat to our national security the usurper poses. I often wonder the same thing.

Mr. Apuzzo the bots always shift the paradigm to fit their next made-up argument, as they do when they define overlapping conflated categories of citizen, or when they focus only on the birth certificate. You can tell the conscious construction of their artificial obfuscatory attacks. Sounds like they're going to want to conflate/confuse two categories into "natural laws", one of their specialties is to leave the public confused and thinking "born in Hawaii" is all that matters.

medical: Yes, even Pravda described this issue over a year ago! If I get the nerve up, I will call for the predicted dumping-on of abuse from my reps' offices. They know there's an 800 pound gorilla wearing a tutu and break dancing in the living room, and they don't really deny it any more. It's more like they ask, "So whatchagonnadoabout it (the 800 lb gorilla)?"And that's about where the conversation dies off. They laugh because they know they've got the corrupted judiciary, fbi, cia, congress, senate, election officials, in their back pockets. Well, what people are gonna do about it, they're never going to say, until there's a revolution on their hands.

"You are the one who not only cannot read but also cannot really think. None of the cases you cite involved defining an Article II “natural born Citizen” in the context of someone running for President. I know how you conveniently conflate a “citizen of the United States” with an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Your problem is that the Framers did not conflate them as you do.

Do you really think there would have been any debate on whether any of the people in any of your cases were citizens if they were “natural born Citizens?” I do not understand your logic. They do not know whether they are “citizens.” The court declares them “citizens” and then they magically appear as “natural born Citizens” whose status no one has any problem recognizing from the beginning. Your logic and position is absurd.

You maintain that the English common law provides the definition of what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Among other cases that you have cited to support your position, you now cite Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 76, 108-09 (1925) and provide the following quote from the decision:

“The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Convention of the Thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.” Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 76, 108-09 (1925)."

My Response:

Well, I guess you guys are running out of cases that support Wong Kim Ark’s reliance on English common law to define national citizenship of the United States. What happened with citing and explaining the cases that Justice Gray used to justify using English common law to define national citizenship? I see that now you are looking for other cases that were not cited by Justice Gray.

This case, Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 (1925) does not support your position that English common law should be used when defining national citizenship. As the Smith v. Alabama case that you and your fellows love to cite is not about citizenship, this case is also not about citizenship. This writ of habeas corpus case is about the President's constitutional power to grant pardons. The defendant prison warden argued that the plaintiff prisoner should stay in jail and the prisoner plaintiff argued that he should be released. The President had pardoned the prison for a contempt of court, causing his one-year jail sentence to be commuted and compelling him to only pay a fine. The Justice Department still had the prisoner jailed, contending that the President did not have the power to grant pardons for contempt which was the offense of which the prisoner was convicted. The Attorney General of the United States filed an amicus brief and contended that the President did have the power to pardon contempts and that the prisoner should therefore be released. It is interesting to see that there was a real battle between the Justice Department and the Attorney General on a question involving the President’s powers under the Constitution.

The prisoner brought the habeas corpus action against the prison warden. The warden argued that the President's pardon powers under the Constitution extended only to offenses committed against the United States (except for impeachments) and that a contempt is not one of those types of offenses. Hence, he argued that the prisoner should stay in jail. The prisoner and the Attorney General argued that the President does have the power to pardon contempts and that the prisoner should therefore be freed from jail.

The Court analyzed what was the meaning of the President's pardon powers were as of the time the Constitution was adopted. The Court looked to the English common law in determining the extent of the President's pardon powers. In that connection, the Court explained what the pardon powers of the English Kings were. The court found evidence that the Founders gave the same meaning to pardons as did the English in their common law and that there was no effort in the Convention to define or change the meaning of the word. The Court found that the English King had the power to grant pardon's for contempt and that the President's power was similar to that of the King. The Court also found that contempts were also crimes. The Court also found no separation of powers problem in giving the President such pardon powers. Finally, the Court found that the Constitution has entrusted the pardon power to the President with the expectation that he will not abuse it.

As we can see, there is no citizenship issue here. The English common law was relied upon because it concerned pardons, an area that is strictly domestic in nature and does not affect relations between nations such as citizenship does. As I have previously said, the principles of the English common law continued to be applied in our courts to resolve local state matters but not on matters affecting our relations with other nations.

It is also important to understand that a pardon is not a subject of the law of nations and the Court would therefore not look to the law of nations to define such a power. Hence, the court was justified in looking to the English common law for a point of reference when no other law provided the needed rule of decision needed to define the President's pardon powers.

As we can see, this case does not support any notion that the English common law would supply the rules of decision when it comes to defining national citizenship and its concomitant political rights that are to be exercised in a constitutional Republic rather than in a hereditary monarchy. Rather, public law or the law of nations provided those rules and the English common law was abrogated accordingly from providing any such rules.

Additionally, there is evidence that the English common law was not used to define all terms in the Constitution. There are many examples but I will share only one with you at this point. James Madison in The Federalist Papers No. 42 tells us that the definition of piracies was taken from the law of nations and not from English common law. In defining piracies, it was necessary to define felonies on the high seas. He explains that felonies had a loose definition in the English common law and varying meanings in English statues. He says that in the absence of adoption of those standards by statute, neither the English common law nor English statutes should be used to define these felonies. He said that the State inconsistent codes were not a practicable source for the definition. Finally, he said that the English common law and English statutes would be “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” in providing the meaning. Hamilton therefore gave it to the law of nations to provide that needed uniform definition.

Do you have any other Supreme Court cases that support Justice Gray's using English common law to define national citizenship? You have yet to produce one.

Actually, funny as hell - and right on point except that I doubt that GHO has as good a sense of humor as the Naxi officer in the film ... but he's equally as stupid if he thinks most Americans are fooled.

If you can stand to have your stomach turned by blind pro-Obama bias by those who believe it's "just fine" to have someone occupy the office of the chief executive of the country who has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he occupies, then you can certainly enjoy reading the almost entirely nonstop nonsense of the various Flying Monkey blogs.

They post with some common themes - all equally ill-conceived:

1. That "citizen" and "natural born Citizen" mean exactly the same thing.

2. That English Common Law governed everything in this country and still does - despite the fact that we fought a war or two to prove otherwise.

3. That King George's "natural born subject" is identical to the words in the Constitution of "natural born Citizen" despite the fact that King G. was not "the sovereign" in the new American country after the Revolutionary War; the American citizen was the sovereign so that the term "natural born subject" is both meaningless and has no relevance nor correspondence to "natural born Citizen" in the Constitution as there are no "subjects" (which are quite different things). Despite ths massive - and obvious - difference the pretense of those wishing to upend the Constitution remains.

4. That the A2S1C5 use of "shall" (a mandatory legal phrasing in the black-letter law of our Constitution) is really optional and not to be taken seriously because a person not meeting that requirement has been placed into the office and cannot therefore be removed legally since lots of people voted for him.

5. That the 14th Amendment means even the anchor babies of illegal aliens born here can be eligible to be president.

6. That the Wong Kim Ark (which even some SCOTUS justices realize is law that should be "revisited") makes Obama eligible to be president as in #5 above even though the case in no way defines the term "natural born Citizen".

7. Laws written by a bunch of old dead white guys do not matter anyway and can be freely disregarded when convenient despite the fact that those very laws are a binding written contract between the three branches of the US government and the population of this country. These guys (some of them undoubtedly Communists, consciously or otherwise), being overly eager to destroy this particular contract, are excessively quick to interpret anything in a way that will promote such destruction since none of them apparently have ever lived under the control of a totalitarian despot (until the present era).

They are wrong on each of these items and attempt to interpret them exactly bass-ackwards - perhaps that's why they are often called Flying Monkeys; they have to flit about to see things in an absolutely reverse manner. These are just a few of the false premises they abide by and it bothers them not a whit that eveything being done by a man who is ineligible will have to be legally voided ... the first such time in our 233-year history ... and that they are complicit in the scam!!!

We are no longer living in America, we are now living in early Nazi Germany, the period before many German Citizens realized they were about to be disarmed and the time during which the gas chambers were being planned by their charismatic leaders. Look carefully at the evidence that is before us, American Citizens and our very nation are in deep trouble, yet apathy and cowardice prevail in Congress, in the press, and in our courts. Over seventy years ago, the Germans were being led down the same path we Americans are treading today. The horrors inflicted by the Nazis are still fresh in the minds of most Jewish persons, my son's wife's grandmother still bears her concentration camp tattoo and she says Americans are surely going to learn that the most evil intentions always hide behind smiling faces. She has seen the future of America, but then it was known as the "Third Reich". In her own words, "Hitler's overcoat wouldn't supply enough material to make a vest for Obama", in other words, Obama's inherent evil far surpasses that of the Fuhrer. Future generations of Americans are depending on us and we shall not fail them.

I believe I may discovered the legal way to get access to Obama's vital records in the Hawaii DOH.-----Everyone has been trying to get access to certified copies of Obama's vital records. Efforts have been halted by Hawaii DOH's continued citation of Statute 338-18 which governs the disclosure of vital records of individuals: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.HTMHowever, Hawaii DOH does allow for Letters of Verification in leiu of certified copies of any and all content of a person's vital records. This is a key element because the requirements of such disclosure is DIFFERENT than that of certified copies.g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes.

As I understand this provision, any person who is employed by an organization who intends to write about Obama's alleged birth in Hawaii (WND, Post & Email, Etc.) does have the legal authority to VERIFY any and all content of Obama's vital records.

I'm not really sure that would be successful. Andy Martin tried that some months ago and, if effect, got the runaround and stonewalling everyone else has been getting.

His legal action was in HI as I recall. I believe the most sure course is the discovery process through either Federal Court or SCOTUS.

I believe, though, that BHO even if he were found to be ineligible and ordered to leave the office for some replacement would merely moon the Judicial branch and the Legislative branch as well as We The Peoply and would say something profound like:

"QQQQ. I won ... and we're implementing Sharia Law starting with NYC and Chicago next Thursday."

The Rules

THE RULES:

This blog does not advocate resort to any violence in order to bring about political change. Rather, what we advocate is resort to zealous use of one's First Amendment right to "freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please keep in mind this is a moderated blog. This is akin to a court setting and is not a wide open say anything you want, anytime you want, free speech zone like a soap box in a public square. If you want that type of forum you will have to go elsewhere. Keep your comments and questions in this blog's threads serious and focused on the subject and merits of this post. Unsubstantiated statements which are determined to be false and misleading, or even potentially misleading to others (the jury of public opinion reading this blog) as to the true facts, repetitive, argumentative, personal ad hominem attacks, defamatory statements, criticism or lobbying efforts for other attorneys and/or their cases, blog scrolling, advertising links, inappropriate links, disinformation campaigns, and/or off topic comments will likely not be posted. I also will not discuss in public specifics as to my planned tactics or strategies. I am the Judge in this blog and will rule on the merits, materiality, worthiness, etc., of all comments. My rulings on the acceptance or rejection of a comment are final. Please note that your comments will not appear immediately as I have to review them first. As I am busy working on various cases with my law practice, it may be several hours to 24 hours some days before your comment is reviewed and accepted and/or answered. Please try to stay on topic. The main focus of this blog -- the Obama Article II natural born Citizen eligibility issue and the historic Kerchner vs. Obama & Congress lawsuit. Thank you.